Heating Your Greenhouse in Europe This Winter

[CG100]

Relax on that breathing thing - as long as you don't eat fossile fuels it will be regenerative CO2 somewhat recently bound by plants.

Only to a point - all food would have to be raw unless using solar or a wood-fire. It also ignores transportation.

In terms of straight CO2, there is lots of work going on to run jet engines on modified vegetable oils, which work just fine, but you quickly hit the problem that there is no way vegetable oils of any kind, from any source, could make much of a dent in fuel demands.
The downside beyond CO2 are the believed effects of what amounts to con-trails, which some reckon are considerable.

[Martin Bohnet]

Relax on that breathing thing - as long as you don't eat fossile fuels it will be regenerative CO2 somewhat recently bound by plants.

Only to a point - all food would have to be raw unless using solar or a wood-fire. It also ignores transportation.

Well all of that CO2 is generated elsewhere, including energy that went into production of fertilizers - the molecules you breath out are strictly of organic origin - except for what you burp out from carbonated drinks...

[Bern]

the molecules you breath out are strictly of organic origin

Molecules of CO2 from organic origin or from the burning of fossil fuel are chemically identical.  If CO2 is perceived to be "the" problem, and the elimination of the burning of fossil fuels does not stop global warming, will the anti-carbon crusaders target the carbon based lifeforms next? 

[fierycloud]

https://www.cnr.it/en/focus/046-4/bvoc-biogenic-volatile-organic-compound-emission-responses-to-climate-change
  The global carbon emitted as BVOCs is about 1.1 Pg per year, and is believed to be of the same order of magnitude than methane emissions.

There are some gas which have carbon released by the plant. And some fragrance essential oils and even Volatile Fatty Acid might be a kind of carbon release in the form of gas.

[David Pilling]

"Our results indicated that although the majority of plant C was obtained from atmosphere by photosynthesis, a significant portion (up to 3–5%) of C in plant roots was derived from old soil. "

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.8b06089#:~:text=Our%20results%20indicated%20that%20although,was%20derived%20from%20old%20soil.

[Martin Bohnet]

and carbon in old soil is not Photosynthesis-based? OK, I guess peat is a problem, but it is very much banned these days outside rhododendron and bog gardening...

[David Pilling]

and carbon in old soil is not Photosynthesis-based?

Coal is photosynthesis-based.

peat is a problem, but it is very much banned

In the UK I am year two peat free, no big deal. Banned? seems like sales to gardeners are banned, but sales to the trade will continue until 2030. Situation in the EU?

Be the first gardener to try:

The 'black gold' that could help fight climate change for centuries to come

https://news.sky.com/story/the-black-gold-that-could-help-fight-climate-change-for-centuries-to-come-12890032

"A high-grade version of BBQ charcoal is being tested as a way of removing greenhouse gas from the atmosphere for centuries to come."

"The charred wood, called biochar, has been spread over farmland in one of the first large-scale trials of its kind, in the hope carbon captured by trees from the air during their lifetime can be buried in the soil."

Using charcoal to grow stuff in is not new. In the Aladin's cave of chemicals which is my gardening work space I have a bag of it.

[Martin Bohnet]

well, in my daytime job i currently work with a catalyst that's even more sulfur sensitive than usual types, so we pass all gasses through an absorber which is active carbon based. CO2 has by far the worst retention time in the absorber, so I guess yes, there is a high affinity - luckily the boudouard equilibrium is on the Carbon  +  CO2 side and nearly unmeasurably slow at room temperature...

[Ron]

CO₂ can also be locked up in carbonate minerals (from the Guardian):  Rock 'flour' from Greenland can capture significant CO2, study shows

[Bern]

"The Kakhovka Dam in Ukraine was destroyed on 6 June 2023 between about 2 a.m. to 2:54 a.m. local time, causing extensive flooding along the lower Dnieper river in Kherson Oblast. The dam was under the control of the Russian military, which had seized it in the early days of the Russian invasion of Ukraine." Wikipedia




I am still reading articles giving the opinion that this might have been a structural failure.  If not, who is responsible for this?  Perhaps Seymour Hersh will be able to tell us in a few months.

[MarkMazer]

Canadian Peat Week:   "Treed peatlands exhibit both crown and smouldering fire potential; however, neither are included in Canadian wildfire management models and, as such, they are not formally represented in management decision-making." https://www.publish.csiro.au/wf/WF21001 

Mark Mazer
East Coast USA

[David Pilling]

If not, who is responsible for this?

People had been speculating for months about blowing up the dam - see William Spaniel on YouTube. Presumably Putin did it because it creates conditions in his favour. It made me think that even if Putin's army is forced from Ukraine what is left may not be usable.

One You Tuber who made it big thanks to covid started to consider how Europe would cope with a major release of radioactivity - if they decide to blow up a power station.

In other news the Washington Post reported that the USA knew Ukraine had a plan for blowing up the Nordstream. There's also been news that traces of the explosives used where found on the rented yacht 'Andromeda' also in the Washington Post "Investigators skeptical of yacht's role in Nord Stream bombing".

[Martin Bohnet]

I actually don't care who blew up Nordstream - in the end it didn't hurt Europe, noone's frozen to death - it was more of a help in seeing what we can cope with. On the other hand things proove that safety is a major concern for future energy projects - how anyone can build a new nuclear power plant in a volatile world is beyond me, and I'm not even talking about Turkeys tectonic problems and their obvious unwillingness to adhere to safety standards in construction. Unfortunately we have to reconsider water power as well.

[David Pilling]

how anyone can build a new nuclear power plant

Today nuclear is the least worst option, after solar it is the safest option.

The previous UK Prime minister (about 8 months ago) was going full speed ahead for more North Sea oil and gas. The next one (everyone assumes, about 16 months hence) is pledging retraining for oil and gas workers after an orderly wind-down of the industry - he hangs around nuclear power plants under construction which were approved by the last Prime minister but two or three. His party has taken a substantial amount of money from the boss of an electricity company that backs the "just stop oil" campaign.

Maybe we will muddle through.

I hope someone has done the maths - probably they have, after all this thread shows Winter 2022-23 turned out OK.

A lot of hope is focused on small nuclear power plants, the type of thing they put in submarines or aircraft carriers - quicker to build in a factory - and you could move them around depending on what the energy policy of the day happens to be.

[Bern]

even if Putin's army is forced from Ukraine what is left may not be usable.

It appears that both Ukraine and Russia are using land mines in this conflict.  These will be a danger to people and livestock for years after the war is over.  Demining will be a huge undertaking without assurance of complete success.